|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jul 15, 2019 6:44:29 GMT -5
The rule in question...
5) Trade Guidelines
L) No Regular or Minor League player may be traded directly from ones starting roster to another manager’s farm roster. Necessary waiver regulations still apply. Alternatively, no player may be traded, signed, or added to ones farm roster and/or starting roster unless there is a spot available prior to or at the time of acquisition.
There's nothing explicitly wrong with this rule or the way it's worded but rather with how it's being interpreted. There was a lot of discussion this past season about this one. As it reads, no player (Regular or Minor League) may be traded directly from ones starting roster to another manager's farm roster. Obviously, you can't circumvent the Waivers system with these players through trade, however, if the Minor Leaguer in question has already passed through the system legally, be it through successful Waivers, eligibility term changing or placed on a roster in the off-season, should that Minor Leaguer be available to be traded from one manager's farm to another manager's farm without having to pass through Waivers?
I'm personally of the opinion that once an asset has entered the farm system that those assets should be available to be traded from farm to farm. Why? Well, because they've already passed through the system legally and aren't necessarily going to be assigned to a main roster once traded and shouldn't need to pass through the Waivers system if the player isn't being assigned to a main roster and/or shouldn't need to pass through Waivers twice. Minor Leaguers are farm eligible assets and don't need to be forced onto a main roster via trade. This notion is also detrimental to the value of Minor Leaguers and can force managers to hold onto them (hoarding them) because they are ultimately worth more to the manager who owns them than to anyone else for this reason. No other players operate this way. I'm of the belief that every player should be of equal perceived value to everybody. Creating more trade talk is also a positive thing, as is having more avenues to improve ones team.
What say you NAFHL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 15, 2019 11:42:36 GMT -5
No. There aren’t any waivers during the off-season and players frequently lose prospect status throughout the year. Neither one of these instances has a player “gone through waivers” and it is absolutely a circumvention of the waiver system. There is a reason why certain players have certain restrictions. It is to promote turnover of talent and force managers to make tough decisions. Allowing farm to farm trading facilitates player hording, most notably NHL ready/current NHL players which dilutes the available FA pool during the season and for the Waiver Draft. Trading minor leaguers from farm to farm does not harm 11 other teams as you claim. It allows the weaker teams in the league to acquire talent for free that better teams could not hold on to after the players are forfeited to the Waiver draft, dropped or called up (having to test waivers before being sent down again). Don’t try to pull the wool over these new managers eyes with your sideways rhetoric. I make rules for the betterment of the league. You look to exploit/change rules for the betterment of your team. . Situationally, yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Newsflash, prospects outside the NHL who play in the OHL, CHL, NCAA, QMJHL, etc. can't score points for your fantasy team on Yahoo where the championship is decided regardless of pedigree or where they were drafted. What good is a #1 prospect outside the NHL going to do for you in the playoffs when rosters are locked and no free agents can be added? A team who has stockpiled "disposable" minor leaguers that is stricken by injury then has a significant advantage. This is just one of many examples. We 12 are all playing by the same rules but not all 12 teams have an equal level of talent. The two are not synonymous and to suggest so is dishonest. Certain rules benefit the better teams, and certain rules benefit the weaker teams. Thus, a better team (you) would obviously prefer rules (this one) that benefit your team. Whereas a better team (me) wants to promote rules (how we have been operating) that better the league. I want the league to operate with every advantage being given to the weaker teams so that "rebuilding" is as painless as possible, while promoting parity year in and year out. Having the same few teams win every year is neither competitive nor fun for the better teams or the weaker teams. This argument is also dishonest. We have had more turnover in the past 18-24 months in the league than we did the entire 10 years prior. Expecting newer managers to grasp the ramifications of every single rule, including this one is unreasonable. What sounds good on paper isn't always practical or beneficial in practice. Once in place the damage could already be done and we could take several steps back. This is one of those rules, regardless of what others might think. Now I am not suggesting that I am smarter or better than anyone, but what I am suggesting is that I have MUCH more experience with this league, these rules and how things shake out. This league was built from the ground up and almost every single rule/change that has been implemented has been for the better, culminating in the league we have today. And fundamental to that foundation is the strict limits that are placed on the farm teams and subsequently prospects and minor leaguers. Look at my farm, just an absolute slew of young, great talent. So what I was doing at the time was trading away high picks and blue chip prospects like the ones you see to gain a single Keeper Slot, essentially a 1-year contract extension, a rental player. In his eyes all he saw was the short term. So did it work? Take a look at my team now and tell me. I was a moron for trading such valuable assets for a 1-year rental year after year, sometimes more than once, depleting my excellent farm teams. Now my farm is as strong as it's ever been as is my main roster. I upgrade now mostly from within. I was only seeing the short term, blinded, and that's not how you build a successful franchise. I might have never learned this lesson if it weren't for the elimination of trading Keeper Slots. This is laughable. If by "blue-chip prospects" you mean bundling fringe keepers you didn't have room to keep for bona fide superstars then I would agree. If by "build from within" you mean bundling fringe keepers you didn't have room to keep for bona fide superstars then I would agree. One terrible trade can set a franchise back years and push another ahead. Here are just a few terrible trades that are still being felt to this day that I have tried to "correct" with some of the rules that have been implemented. Timothy Liljegren To San Jose: Elias Pettersson I accept. Cory Schneider Charlie McAvoy 2018 2nd Round Entry To San Jose: Patrik Laine I accept. Jonathan Bernier Valeri Nichushkin Mats Zuccarello 2014 1st Round Entry (5th Overall) 2014 5th Round Waiver (55th Overall) To San Jose: Taylor Hall 2014 1st Round Entry (3rd Overall) I accept. Jeff Skinner Logan Couture David Backes Ryan Kesler To San Jose: Steven Stamkos 2012 3rd Round Entry (SJ) (35th Overall) 2012 6th Round Waiver (71st Overall) I accept. To San Jose: Luongo 1st Round Prospect Pick 07 For McCabe Cammalleri Roloson Jagr, Modano, Blake, Raycroft To San Jose: Crosby, A. Carter, Roloson The bottom line is you should stop distorting facts in attempt to make yourself out to be some sort of pious individual valiantly defending the honor of the league, all the while trying to manipulate the rules to slant things in your favor. I find it very ironic that you would be criticizing me for needing to show "more respect." I have had more complaints about you personally from league members throughout the years than all the other GM's combined (Low-ball offers, disrespectful attitude, nit-picking etc.). People have even called for your removal. But you know what? I defended you and wouldn't even entertain the idea because not only are you my friend of over 15 years but you bring a much-needed element to the league. I don't believe everyone should be "nice" all the time, and the differences of opinion promote conversation which ultimately leads to growth. So if you felt personally attacked, then I apologize. It was "just business." But if at certain critical points in this leagues history I didn't have a "dictator" mentality, the league would not be what it is today and most likely you would not still be a GM. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that not everyone is aware of. I have spent countless hours thinking about this league and how to continually improve it. The GM's have trusted me to do that for over 12 years with overall resounding success, and I am going to need you to trust me once more when I say that trading minor leaguers between farm teams without testing waivers is not a good idea and does not promote parity in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 15, 2019 11:54:36 GMT -5
I do not feel the need to repeat myself so I have copied and pasted the dialogue from last time this issue was briefly discussed above. Allowing minor league players to be traded from farm to farm without testing waivers is something that can have catastrophic results for the league and not a path I am willing to go down again. If this rule (and probably the trading of keeper slots as well) naively gets voted into a place I will be forced with the decision of losing those in favor or quitting the league myself. That is how strongly I feel about these two issues. These "rules" were implemented in 2013-2014 season and since we have enjoyed increased parity every single season with 80% of the league consistency battling for playoff spots year in and year out. Trading minor leaguers farm to farm ONLY benefits the top teams and to argue for its change all the while attempting to deceive lesser experienced fantasy GM's (with these league rules) is incredibly selfish and detrimental to the league as a whole. I have said it once but I will say it again. I want what is best for the league, Nos wants what is best for Nos. There is a reason he is lobbying so hard for these changes. Look at the above trades and how his team was "built" from 2014 and before. Bundling minor league garbage for superstars. Post 2014 with increased parity, talent is lost to the waiver draft and weaker teams got better. Here is a list of his finishes in the league for reference.
2018 - 2nd
2017 - 5th
2016 - 4th
2015 - 2nd
2014 - 3rd
2013 - 1st
2012 - 2nd
2011 - 1st
2010 - 1st
2009 - 2nd
Notice anything? Finishing 1st or 2nd in 5 straight years was a result of taking advantage of new GM's in the league mainly by bundling garbage minor leaguers for superstars and/or trading garbage for keeper slots. Removing those things has led to respectable albeit more pedestrian finishes the following 5 years. I would like to think of my team as one of the top ones in the league and both of these rules would benefit me greatly. However, I can look past my own benefit for what is best for the league. Implementing either trading minor leaguers between farm teams and/or keeper slots is INCREDIBLY detrimental to parity in the league and I am vehemently opposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jul 15, 2019 13:09:01 GMT -5
I'm curious why you believe so strongly that trading Minor Leaguers Farm to Farm would have such catastrophic implications? Isn't it just another option that promotes trading and improves the value of Minor Leaguers who are already worth less by means of having to clear Waivers to be sent to and from the main roster and farm team? Why does this rule specifically benefit strong teams? Legitimately curious as my opinion on this issue isn't unmovable.
There's no reason to threaten to quit the league Derrick. You've had it your way with Keeper Slots for years now, has it really worked? Do you actually believe my team is weaker? All it truly means is that one of my players got placed back into the Waiver Draft and I will always have my 1st to either get the player back or grab another player of greater or equal value. There are a number of reasons my team hasn't seen the success it had in previous years, although being in the Top 3 (2nd twice) three out of five years ain't half bad, and it has nothing to do with this rule or the trading of Keeper Slots. One major reason is that I've been outnumbered with total starts.
Is 80% of the league really competing like you claim? I don't think so personally, haven't the bad boys always been the bad boys? San Jose, Ottawa, Calgary & Boston/Vancouver, we haven't really veered, if anything we're more firmly planted at the top with the weaker teams having fewer options to improve. As far as your insults towards me, I'm gonna ignore them and call for a truce. I truly don't want to fight with you at all anymore. We're friends. It's not beneficial for us to be at each other's throats like this just for the sake of 'competition'. That's not the type of competition I'm after, I just want things to be equal, fun, interesting, etc. I want the league to voice their opinion on what they actually want, especially the lower placed teams, we've had our voices heard and loudly for such a long time.
By the way, zero of those trades you posted up involve a Keeper Slot. With time applied many trades will look bad, right? I'm sure you could comb through your trade history and find much of the same. Many of those players weren't the superstars they are today back then. I'd call it a good eye for talent rather than deception. Nobody has to make trades, it's part of the game. You claim parity has increased and illustrate this by showing my finishes but here are your finishes over that time...
2018 - 1st
2017 - 1st
2016 - 3rd
2015 - 3rd
2014 - 4th
2013 - 3rd
2012 - 1st
2011 - 3rd
2010 - 2nd
2009 - 1st
Looks like you're doing pretty well. You admit to suppressing me, your strongest competition, to acquire a better placement in the standings yourself. I don't believe that's happened, at least not with trading Minor Leaguers Farm to Farm or trading Keeper Slots. These issues are inconsequential to how the standings have played out. You found other ways to find an edge, one of which was learned from your experience with Mark. Anyway, I'm just looking for additional opinions that aren't ours, I want to see what the league actually wants as I'm genuinely interested. I'm all for what the league as a collective wants. It's kind of hard to ignore the vast majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robyn - Flames on Jul 15, 2019 18:42:01 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 16, 2019 1:16:56 GMT -5
I'm curious why you believe so strongly that trading Minor Leaguers Farm to Farm would have such catastrophic implications? Isn't it just another option that promotes trading and improves the value of Minor Leaguers who are already worth less by means of having to clear Waivers to be sent to and from the main roster and farm team? Why does this rule specifically benefit strong teams? Legitimately curious as my opinion on this issue isn't unmovable. Trading Minor Leaguers between farms without clearing waivers creates unnecessary loopholes that can be exploited without offering anything of value in return. (Most notably terrible trades like the ones above where newer/inexperienced managers are taken advantage of). It weakens the pool of available players who are eligible to be drafted in the Waiver Draft. And finally, it diminishes the values of prospect eligible players. A player that would be sent down for free with 149 games played could let his prospect status expire and be "hidden" on the farm and traded for free just like a prospect and without having to ever test waivers. The area between 150 and 200 NHL games played is not a period meant to be spent assessing a player (that is what the first 150 games are for), it is a period to decide whether or not said player is going to be a keeper for you. Or as I put it before: There's no reason to threaten to quit the league Derrick. You've had it your way with Keeper Slots for years now, has it really worked? Do you actually believe my team is weaker? All it truly means is that one of my players got placed back into the Waiver Draft and I will always have my 1st to either get the player back or grab another player of greater or equal value. There are a number of reasons my team hasn't seen the success it had in previous years, although being in the Top 3 (2nd twice) three out of five years ain't half bad, and it has nothing to do with this rule or the trading of Keeper Slots. One major reason is that I've been outnumbered with total starts. I am not "threatening" anybody. I am stating that I would potentially no longer wish to participate in a league where this rule exists. And as far as keeper slots go, yeah, they really matter. Your 1st Round Waiver Pick is seven slots lower than the extra player you would be keeping. You aren't getting the same superstar player back you can't keep or even one that is comparable all the time. The player you are forced to give up because you can't trade for a keeper slot will be drafted picks 1-6 like mine are almost every year. See most recently: William Karlsson and Evander Kane. Also, the "outnumbered with total starts" thing is a really tired excuse. Every player plays 82 games in a fully healthy season. If you had less starts one week you had more starts another week or weeks. So by your theory I could argue that you never should have won the week or weeks where you had more starts than your opponent and therefore should not have even been playing the championship match. Alternatively, I could also argue that I had to overcome more, winning matchups prior to ours with less starts than my opponent. But I don't. Because it is dumb. Did you ever consider the fact that you had less skater starts because you CHOSE to roster 4 goalies?? Is 80% of the league really competing like you claim? I don't think so personally, haven't the bad boys always been the bad boys? San Jose, Ottawa, Calgary & Boston/Vancouver, we haven't really veered, if anything we're more firmly planted at the top with the weaker teams having fewer options to improve. As far as your insults towards me, I'm gonna ignore them and call for a truce. I truly don't want to fight with you at all anymore. We're friends. It's not beneficial for us to be at each other's throats like this just for the sake of 'competition'. That's not the type of competition I'm after, I just want things to be equal, fun, interesting, etc. I want the league to voice their opinion on what they actually want, especially the lower placed teams, we've had our voices heard and loudly for such a long time. Yes. If I didn't think it or know it to be true I wouldn't have stated it. The "bad boys" have always been the bad boys but claiming there is not increased parity is naive and/or willfully ignorant. Not to mention extremely disrespectful to the 2016 Championship Winnipeg Jets team. Or how about the 2nd place Vegas Golden Knights team in 2017? Prior to 2014 this would have NEVER happened. Do you realize that (excluding the cheating 2007 Boston incident season) from 2006 through 2013 only you or I won the championship? In the 5 years since, there have been 3 different champions. Not to mention 9 out of the 12 teams in the league have made the playoffs (Ottawa, San Jose, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Winnipeg, New Jersey, Vegas, Washington) with the points near the top of the standings as close as they have ever been, as well as the points separating teams in the middle of the standings being as close as they have ever been. By the way, zero of those trades you posted up involve a Keeper Slot. With time applied many trades will look bad, right? I'm sure you could comb through your trade history and find much of the same. Many of those players weren't the superstars they are today back then. I'd call it a good eye for talent rather than deception. Nobody has to make trades, it's part of the game. Ryan Ellis To San Jose: 2011 Keeper Slot I accept. Wojtek Wolski Milan Michalek Thomas Hickey 2009 3rd Rd Waiver To San Jose: Chris Pronger 2009 Keeper Slot Patrice Bergeron 2008 1st Round Prospect ( San Jose) To San Jose: Keeper Slot 2008 1st Round Prospect ( Winnipeg) I accept. NONE of these players are or were keeper worthy, and definitely aren't/weren't 1st Round Waiver Draft material, excluding maybe Bergeron, who isn't better than the player you kept and/or isn't going #1 overall in the Waiver Draft. And really? The guys you traded fodder for weren't superstars at the time? 1st Round, 1st Overall 50 points in 45 games Taylor Hall. 1st Round, 2nd Overall 64 points in 73 games Patrik Laine. 1st Round, 1st Overall 92 points in 82 games Steven Stamkos. 1st Pick 1st Overall 102 points in 81 games Sidney Crosby. What exactly is your definition of 'superstar' again?  ?? You claim parity has increased and illustrate this by showing my finishes but here are your finishes over that time... 2018 - 1st 2017 - 1st 2016 - 3rd 2015 - 3rd 2014 - 4th 2013 - 3rd 2012 - 1st 2011 - 3rd 2010 - 2nd 2009 - 1st Looks like you're doing pretty well. You admit to suppressing me, your strongest competition, to acquire a better placement in the standings yourself. I don't believe that's happened, at least not with trading Minor Leaguers Farm to Farm or trading Keeper Slots. These issues are inconsequential to how the standings have played out. You found other ways to find an edge, one of which was learned from your experience with Mark. Anyway, I'm just looking for additional opinions that aren't ours, I want to see what the league actually wants as I'm genuinely interested. I'm all for what the league as a collective wants. It's kind of hard to ignore the vast majority. Here is the thing you can't seem to grasp. It isn't about YOU. Or suppressing you. It is about the betterment of the league, which includes providing the most advantages we can to the weaker teams. As for my finishes, I don't see what you are trying to illustrate. All this shows is that I am really consistent with AND without the trading of keepers slots/minor leaguers farm to farm/different rules. So I don't need to "suppress you" or find advantages or whatever else you claim. I am consistent because I work hard drafting and scouting players. And I definitely don't take advantage of weaker teams with terrible trades to give myself an advantage. Which is what I was attempting to illustrate by listing your finishes. It just so happened that you having weaker finishes in the previous 5 years compared to the 5 years before those correlated with increased parity in the league. Also, what the collective wants isn't always necessary what is best for the league. We have had more turnover in the past 18-24 months in the league than we did the entire 10 years prior. Expecting newer managers to grasp the ramifications of every single rule, including this one is unreasonable. What sounds good on paper isn't always practical or beneficial in practice. Once in place the damage could already be done and we could take several steps back. This is one of those rules, regardless of what others might think. Now I am not suggesting that I am smarter or better than anyone, but what I am suggesting is that I have MUCH more experience with this league, these rules and how things shake out. This league was built from the ground up and almost every single rule/change that has been implemented has been for the better, culminating in the league we have today. And fundamental to that foundation is the strict limits that are placed on the farm teams and subsequently prospects and minor leaguers. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jul 16, 2019 7:16:11 GMT -5
Great...fucking...post dude, seriously good stuff. I can understand your perspective with greater clarity now, it makes logical sense and you even kept your insults to a minimum. I like it, Minor Leaguers are a mid-road stop where the lines between prospect and regular player start to blur. I'm gonna go ahead and change my vote. Gotta say though, I still don't really agree about Keeper Slots, I can understand your point to a degree but ultimately I still believe it's a valuable tool for weaker teams to exploit desperate stronger teams. It's just a 1-year rental contract. Even without 4 or 5 of the top players there's just a slew of great talent that could be had. As is, in the 1st Round you can absolutely get back a top guy, someone totally comparable to the best player you lose, always. I'm not gonna put up a poll for this issue as I don't believe I'm the one who should Champion it. The lower placed teams have to want it and demand it and I'll support them if they do. As far as the total starts issue, I just want everybody to have an equal opportunity to win any given week with total starts not being a driving force behind the win. In an ideal world everybody would play the same amount of games each week but since this is virtually impossible we have to find a way to limit this clearly unfair advantage. I'm not impressed by someone getting a victory who had a clear starts advantage, it doesn't really say anything about your team or your skills as a manager. I'm also not into having my strategy dictated to me because managers force that type of play on you. Every team plays 82 games, right, every team plays that many games. There aren't some teams who play 86 games or 93 games or 78 games. They play 82. You say you had to overcome more, winning matchups prior to ours with fewer starts than your opponents but this was your season record for total starts vs. your opponents... 17-6-0 You honestly don't see a problem? Come on. My record for total starts vs. my opponents... 10-12-1 I'm talking total starts period here, including goalies, total skater starts is a whole other issue. As far as parity, I dunno, I can see it to an extent but I honestly feel like more teams were fighting for it in the 5 years prior. 13 different teams made the playoffs in those years (Ottawa Senators, San Jose Sharks, Calgary Flames, Pittsburgh Penguins, Boston Bruins, Vancouver Canucks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Minnesota Wild, Carolina Hurricanes, Anaheim Ducks, Detroit Red Wings, Colorado Avalanche, Winnipeg Jets). Now, I know some of those teams were the same team just with a changed name but I can't remember which ones off the top of my head. I know Pittsburgh and Detroit were the same team but there has to be at least 9, or more, teams who made the playoffs during that time. The same amount you claim illustrates increased parity. There is a good reason we won the league so often. When it comes to those Keeper Slot trades, come on, Patrice Bergeron is a freakin' stud to this day. Ellis is also a top quality piece and at the time he was a highly touted prospect PPQB! Wolski, Michalek & Hickey didn't quite turn out the way many people thought they would but there was a time when Wolski & Michalek were highly desired young winger prospects on intriguing teams. If I remember right we would discuss these guys at length and you were a pretty big fan of them. Regardless, all of that talent for a couple of 1-year rental contracts. As far as those 'superstar' trades, sure some of them were, some of them were also highly touted but hadn't quite made it either. If you really want to analyze the past, siiiiiiiiiigh, why not? When it comes to Crosby, he had played one season, was great, so I targeted him as my first order of business as a GM to make my mark. At that time Jagr was literally the top player in the league, having scored 120 points in the previous season, nobody would know that he would soon defect to Europe especially showing that type of dominance in the NHL. Modano and Blake were HOF talents and Raycroft was thought of as the Toronto Maple Leafs next young beast starting goalie. Things went sour on all fronts and when we look at the trade today it looks awful. Point is, there is a difference between how things are viewed at the time and how they appear with hindsight. The Luongo trade, McCabe was a top defenseman PPQB with 50+ point potential, Cammalleri was a young spark plug with a good amount of talent playing top line minutes and Roloson had just beasted it in goal with Edmonton. As far as Stamkos, I mean, Jeff Skinner and Logan Couture are top guys to this day and were highly touted young superstars themselves. Backes and Kesler were at the top of their games and were multi-cat performers. Hardly a bad deal even looking back at it now. That was a team trying to become deeper. The Hall trade, again, Jonathan Bernier was thought of as a sure fire top goaltending prospect who was to be the #1 guy in Toronto. Nichushkin had hype like that of a Kucherov type player and Zuccarello is a fine piece. Hall, still to this day, has only cracked 80 points twice in his 9 year career, 60 points three times and 50 points 6 times. That means he's fallen below 50 points in 3 seasons. A superstar talent to be sure but his production has left something to be desired. Laine, the book is still out on Laine. Again, a superstar talent for sure but he was a huge disappointment for me last season. Guy scored 50 points last season and was a whopping -24. That's unacceptable. 64, 70 & 50 points in his first 3 seasons. Superstar? Also, nobody could have thought Schneider would have fallen so fucking hard, I mean woooow, the guy is such a good goalie, I don't get it. Injuries are a bitch. He could easily see a resurgence this season, I like what the Devils have done so we'll see. McAvoy is still going to be a freakin' beast PPQB for the Bruins if he can stay healthy too. What's the problem with Pettersson for Liljegren? Nobody knew what Pettersson would have done...except me.  No really, I was hoping, praying. Liljegren is still a top quality piece who will take over Toronto's blue line pretty quickly. Defensemen take longer to develop. Morgan Rielly could price himself out of Toronto in a couple of seasons especially with all of the cap problems they're likely to have with their forward talent, it's no coincidence that Rielly's contract is up at the same time Liljegren's entry level contract expires. Phew! Now, let's focus a bit on your deals just for the sake of an opposing view. Didn't you just screw over Chris - Capitals for his best player? Yeah, traded...who?? Oh yeah, Ryan Strome, a dropped Ryan Strome, for Alexander Radulov! That was Chris' best player, alright? He ended up being your 3rd best player and you kept the guy. The best team in the league found reason enough to keep the guy and Chris didn't see him as a Keeper? I mean wow. Also, going back in time, didn't you trade a bunch of scrubs for one of the best players to ever live in Joe Thornton? In fact, that trade was like...the blueprint for my Crosby trade. You definitely don't take advantage of weaker teams with terrible trades to give yourself an advantage.  Anyway, just a bit of fun, no reason to take it so seriously. Maybe you aren't as angelic as you believe you are and maybe I'm not as sinister as you portray me to be. Just remember this, what you want isn't always necessarily what is best for the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Jul 16, 2019 11:28:24 GMT -5
I believe allowing farm to farm trades has the potential to spark activity in the league. I know this is fantasy hockey but farm to farm trades happen everyday in the NHL. We could implement a waiver period upon calling up Minor Leaguers that have recently been traded. The NHL has that rule as well with one way contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 16, 2019 13:03:03 GMT -5
When it comes to Crosby, he had played one season, was great, so I targeted him as my first order of business as a GM to make my mark. At that time Jagr was literally the top player in the league, having scored 120 points in the previous season, nobody would know that he would soon defect to Europe especially showing that type of dominance in the NHL. Modano and Blake were HOF talents and Raycroft was thought of as the Toronto Maple Leafs next young beast starting goalie. Things went sour on all fronts and when we look at the trade today it looks awful. Point is, there is a difference between how things are viewed at the time and how they appear with hindsight. The Luongo trade, McCabe was a top defenseman PPQB with 50+ point potential, Cammalleri was a young spark plug with a good amount of talent playing top line minutes and Roloson had just beasted it in goal with Edmonton. As far as Stamkos, I mean, Jeff Skinner and Logan Couture are top guys to this day and were highly touted young superstars themselves. Backes and Kesler were at the top of their games and were multi-cat performers. Hardly a bad deal even looking back at it now. That was a team trying to become deeper. The Hall trade, again, Jonathan Bernier was thought of as a sure fire top goaltending prospect who was to be the #1 guy in Toronto. Nichushkin had hype like that of a Kucherov type player and Zuccarello is a fine piece. Hall, still to this day, has only cracked 80 points twice in his 9 year career, 60 points three times and 50 points 6 times. That means he's fallen below 50 points in 3 seasons. A superstar talent to be sure but his production has left something to be desired. Laine, the book is still out on Laine. Again, a superstar talent for sure but he was a huge disappointment for me last season. Guy scored 50 points last season and was a whopping -24. That's unacceptable. 64, 70 & 50 points in his first 3 seasons. Superstar? Also, nobody could have thought Schneider would have fallen so fucking hard, I mean woooow, the guy is such a good goalie, I don't get it. Injuries are a bitch. He could easily see a resurgence this season, I like what the Devils have done so we'll see. McAvoy is still going to be a freakin' beast PPQB for the Bruins if he can stay healthy too. You say that value isn't assessed the same at the time of the trade as it is looking back in hindsight but that isn't entirely true. I verbally voiced the issues I had with those trades when they happened and that hasn't changed to this day. The value just wasn't there. But value is just part of the issue. You are presenting these trades based on "value" alone and neglecting to mention the circumstances surrounding the trade. Sure, Jagr, Modano, and Blake are hall of famers but they were at the end of their careers and they were being traded to a team NOT IN PLAYOFF CONTENTION. Same goes for Mccabe and Roloson. So these rebuilding teams are stuck with a bunch of guys that are essentially worthless. Why in a million years would ANYONE trade a young superstar for an old superstar anyway, rebuilding or not? There is no reason other than poor judgement. Value aside, circumstances surrounding the team trading away the superstars aside, the lopsidedness of trading multiple players for one gets even more ridiculous when you factor in that the already weaker, rebuilding team must drop THREE additional players to accommodate the trade. So in reality the trade was actually something like Crosby, 50 point player, 50 point player, 50 point player for Jagr, Modano, Blake, Raycroft (all players that have little to zero value to a rebuilding team) which is absolutely LUDICROUS. One of the best players in the world, a generational talent, traded for scraps. This, among other things is a place I am not eager for the league to return to. Trading minor leaguers farm to farm is a step in that direction, albeit on a less impactful scale. Phew! Now, let's focus a bit on your deals just for the sake of an opposing view. Didn't you just screw over Chris - Capitals for his best player? Yeah, traded...who?? Oh yeah, Ryan Strome, a dropped Ryan Strome, for Alexander Radulov! That was Chris' best player, alright? He ended up being your 3rd best player and you kept the guy. The best team in the league found reason enough to keep the guy and Chris didn't see him as a Keeper? I mean wow. Also, going back in time, didn't you trade a bunch of scrubs for one of the best players to ever live in Joe Thornton? In fact, that trade was like...the blueprint for my Crosby trade. You definitely don't take advantage of weaker teams with terrible trades to give yourself an advantage. Radulov was Chris - Capitals best player? What are you talking about? Again, circumstances dictate value. Radulov is 33 years old and wasn't going to be a keeper for Chris - Capitals because he was not in the playoffs and is in a semi-rebuilding mode. I am a perennial championship contender who could use the immediate boost Radulov provides for the next 2-3 years. So yeah, it makes way more sense for me to keep him than it does for Chris - Capitals to keep him. Not to mention he acquired a promising young defenseman in Victor Soderstrom and a 3rd Round Waiver (I drafted Mika Zibanejad in the 3rd last year for comparison) in addition to Ryan Strome. These are players he gets to roster and keep for "free," netting him a profit of 1 additional player in the trade while still keeping his 10 other best players from his roster. If Chris - Capitals feels the same way you do, and Radulov truly was his "best player" I would gladly exchange Radulov for Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Hedman, Ehlers, Dubnyk, Holtby, etc. Just send the paperwork my way. I won't hold my breath though. As for the Thornton trade, the main piece involved was a young Alexander Semin, who went on to produce seasons of 73, 79, 84, scoring at nearly a point per game clip before having his career cut short due to injury. Hardly a "scrub." Again, the difference in this trade and yours is that, as a playoff contending team, I was taking back the older guy and trading away the younger star to a team that was rebuilding. You know, because that makes sense. Rebuilding teams trading young superstars and generational talent away to you for old guys...doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 16, 2019 13:16:34 GMT -5
Anyway. We are kind of getting off-track arguing merit, personal accomplishments, and trades. So to bring things into perspective and back on-topic a little bit here is a quote from an old NAFHL sage that illustrates the issue at hand perfectly. I understand he is directly speaking about keeper slots, but the two are loosely related and follow the same pattern in how talent is acquired/lost and the ramifications it has on the league. I think Robyn's post perfectly summarized what Nos doesn't realize or purposely fails to mention. Keeper slots (who turn into proven talent) are quite often traded away for prospects/picks that are not guaranteed to turn into talent (an unknown value). With the rare exception, most prospects don't start to produce reliable fantasy stats until after they lose their farm status or they might not pan out at all. Alex Daigle was the best prospect in the world at one time and look at his career. Robyn will be forced to choose who to keep and who to lose because its not reasonable to think he can acquire four extra keeper slots to keep everyone of his graduating prospects. I've seen a vicious cycle in NAFHL already happen a few times: A poor team trades away keeper slots (who would've been a proven talent in the waiver draft) or trades a stud for a bunch of young prospects. Those prospects aren't studs like Crosby, Stamkos, etc (who were producing star stats almost immediately) and need to spend a few years developing in the minor leagues. When the farm players are ready to produce, they've already lost their farm eligibility. In addition to whatever quality players on their regular roster they already had, when you add those young players, they have more keeper players than keeper slots available. The rich teams don't ever trade away keeper slots, so the poor team will lose quality players to the waiver draft once they have the chance to become a good team. The rich teams now have the chance to poach those players and continue to stay rich. So the poor team loses their young player AND they lost the time it took to develop them. The poor teams will always lose talent... its just the rich teams find ways to delay or prevent losing theirs by acquiring keeper slots. In fantasy leagues, there will always be a divide between good teams & bad, we're just trying to find a way to increase parity and prevent those bad teams from staying bad. It's not hand holding... its a fantasy league version of profit-sharing. Nos, on more than one occasion you've expressed how you wish NAFHL was a dynasty league. I'll admit you've been a phenomenal GM and built a great team while staying within the rules of the league. But, the NAFHL was never meant to be a dynasty league and trading keeper slots is a loop hole which does just that. We need to close that loop hole and restore parity. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jul 16, 2019 13:24:59 GMT -5
I believe allowing farm to farm trades has the potential to spark activity in the league. I know this is fantasy hockey but farm to farm trades happen everyday in the NHL. We could implement a waiver period upon calling up Minor Leaguers that have recently been traded. The NHL has that rule as well with one way contracts. We can all agree that league activity is good. There are many ways to participate in the league, and trading is one of those ways. But trading players just for the sake of activity is a slippery slope and not something that I think is good for this league or for every franchise. Sometimes (most of the time), doing nothing and staying patient is the "right" thing to do. Every manager is still able to participate in the same amount of trade talks with or without the trading of minor leaguers directly between farm teams. One can trade away any or all draft picks, any or all of the 19 players on his main roster, some or all 10 players on his farm-farm team, and the majority (or all if you choose not to roster minor leaguers) of the players on his farm team. The majority of the players on farm teams are prospects, and amending the rule to accommodate so few players provides little to no benefit when weighed against the amount of potential problems it creates. The rule is in place to promote more available Waiver Draft talent and to increase parity in the league. Both of which I think it has done a great job of doing over the past 5 years, as evidenced by some of the data provided above. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jul 17, 2019 10:07:09 GMT -5
Alright, top notch werewolf flick! Werewolf Woman (Di Silvestro, 1976) *** (out of 4) A werewolf rape revenge Italian horror sleaze fest! If you ever decide to watch it you won't be disappointed! It even has the three B's, blood, beasts & breasts! Joe Bob says...check it out!  Well, many of your arguments fall apart when facts are brought to the table man. I hate to pick it apart dude but here we go. First of all, Jagr was the best player in the league at the time he was traded, scoring 120 points the season prior, a real legend, he signed in Europe shockingly later on but even came back to beast it further. That was an unforeseen circumstance. Modano and Blake were HOF talents with more to provide a team at the time, depth, sure, those two were in the back nine but not everybody is going to be young in a deal, sometimes you need added reliable production, it's all part of the balance of a team. The young superstar prospect he received was Calder winning goalie Andrew Raycroft who was expected to be a huge deal in Toronto. The team I traded with was the Toronto Maple Leafs and yes they actually did make the playoffs that season so I'm not sure where you get your flamboyant 'traded to a team NOT IN PLAYOFF CONTENTION' comment from? How are the players worthless? Jagr scored 96 points that season. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that not everything could be foreseen at that point in time. Had Jagr continued to play in the NHL he would have done extremely well. Somebody might trade a young superstar for an older one because they like the value of the package they're getting in return and I believe Raycroft played a large part in him liking the deal. Not every player was old in the deal. You can say it was poor judgement and looking back at it now it definitely was but for you to say you could totally see it...I dunno. The next part of your argument is just false because he didn't have to drop 3 players to accommodate the ones he received because the trade was a 4 for 3 deal; Jagr, Modano, Blake & Raycroft for Crosby, A. Carter & Roloson. You keep calling his team a 'rebuilding team' (This was the first season! Haha, actually nobody had even played a single game yet at the time of the trade!) but his team, again, made the playoffs! How can you call those players 'scraps'? Are you kidding me? It was a freakin' legend still producing at the top, two additional depth legends and a Calder winning prospect goalie! Scraps, holy moly. Anyway, these types of trades absolutely can still happen at any moment, nothing is stopping them from happening, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Ovechkin+++ could conceivably net Jack Hughes or someone similar, alright? Now, onto Radulov, yes Radulov was Chris' best player last season and he was your 3rd best player. Did I say best Keeper? I don't think so, I said best player, evidenced by where he was ranked based on our stat categories at the end of the season. Chris has been in rebuild mode for his entire fantasy life. This is now Year 14! Chris doesn't need to have that mentality anymore, Chris needs to acquire players who are actually producing, that was his 1st Round pick and he killed it with that selection and then traded him away for scraps that are of lesser value than the 1st he used to acquire him! That's not even taking into account how much more value Radulov gained over the course of the season. Chris has plenty of good young building blocks, he needs players who can produce now if he wants to get himself out of the basement of the league. He needs to balance that team out. It makes zero sense for him to give you that caliber of player, doesn't even matter what his team is doing, his team needs that player, he got bent over. Soderstrom is one of the worst fantasy prospects selected in the Entry Draft and he was avoided by everybody for so long for a reason. Anyway, is Zibanejad really a good reference point for a 3rd Round Waiver pick? Or is that your attempt to slather a bunch of icing on a shit cake? That's who you picked. Who has Chris picked in the 3rd Round of the Waiver Drafts? Hanifin, Spezza, Cammalleri, Weiss, Ott, etc. He didn't have 3rd Rounders in a couple of recent Waiver Drafts so let's even revert to the 2nd Round, in those instances he got Palmieri & Pominville. There was zero profit acquired so you can just go ahead and stop, alright? Hey, would you trade back Radulov to Chris for one of Drouin, Wilson or Pietrangelo? I mean you did include an 'etc.' in there so you gotta assume you meant those 'highly valuable' Keepers too, right? Yeah...I won't hold my breath on that one either buuuud-dy! Alexander Semin. Are you actually for real? He is the definition of a scrub. Alexander Semin, not a scrub. Jagr, Modano, Blake and Raycroft...scrubs. I mean wow. Thornton was the older guy? You mean the Joe Thornton who went on to have a 'one of the best of all time' playing careers that spanned over a decade more on your team as a top talent? When the heck was Alexander Semin ever a 'star'? Stop iiiiiit! Haha. Again, not all players involved were old, you're just dead set on focusing on the old ones. Young: Liljegren, McAvoy, Bernier, Nichushkin, Zuccarello, Skinner, Couture, Cammalleri, Raycroft, Ellis, Wolski, Michalek, Hickey, Bergeron. As for your last little bit with a quote from the dearly missed Mark - Bruins (he didn't die, he just left), what you and he don't get is this, when you trade for assets like picks there's more work to be done. When you trade for young prospects there's scouting to be done, get the right guys. You guys were just seeing me expertly acquire Keeper Slots to 'stop the bleeding' on my team but the guys who got picks back had to make the right choices with those assets, their job wasn't done, mine was for the time being or rather my job was delayed for one season. Like you said earlier, you found Zibanejad in the 3rd Round! He was a Keeper for you, the best team in the league. It's not my job to find these players for these managers. That was a 3rd Rounder, that wasn't even a 1st like the typical asking price for a Keeper Slot. Bottom teams are trading assets they don't need and are worthless to them to acquire a 1st or other highly valuable assets like young players (Bergeron, Ellis, etc.) and while they may not turn out all the time, it is still a better option for their team than to keep players that wouldn't even go in the 1st Round or anywhere close to it. All this illustrates is that you are thinking about the top teams more so than the bottom teams when you think about Keeper Slots. You don't want the top team to get the slot because you're in competition with that team, you don't care how much the bottom teams suffer from it. The Keeper Slot isn't an all time slot, it is a 1-year contract extension, after that you'd have to acquire another Keeper Slot to keep the player beyond that year and you end up dumping a ton of valuable assets. It isn't the ideal scenario for you to be in but having that option allowed you to add some time onto your predicament and sort out your true Keepers deliberately. It allowed the bottom teams to acquire highly valuable assets that they would have no access to otherwise. No, the playoff contending teams obviously don't typically trade away Keeper Slots because that would generally be counterintuitive but it has happened. The Carolina Hurricanes made the playoffs in the 2010 & 2011 seasons and traded away a Keeper Slot in both seasons. So to say never is, again, false. Here are some other Keeper Slot trades involving me... To Toronto: Niklas Kronwall Kris Versteeg Tim Thomas To San Jose: Keeper Slot Remember this beauty? You negotiated this deal on behalf of the Maple Leafs franchise. Not a bad slew of talent he got for that 1-year contract extension, wouldn't you say? To Toronto: Ryan O'Reilly David Desharnais 2012 1st Round Entry 2012 1st Round Waiver 2012 3rd Round Waiver To San Jose: Scott Hartnell Keeper Slot I accept. How about this one? I mean wooooooooooooooooooow! How stupid was I? Jesus, Mary and Joseph! To Winnipeg: Victor Hedman Zac Dalpe Travis Hamonic 2012 2nd Round Waiver 2012 3rd Round Waiver To San Jose: Keeper Slot I accept.  You didn't just intentionally skip over these ones because it would have blown your argument away, right? You couldn't possibly have done that, that would have been manipulative and dishonest, nah, you just missed them. That's cool, here they are! Point being, there are good and bad trades, all the time. You can highlight all my good cops all day and I can spend twice as much time showing you my blown trades and things that make me go crazy. |
|
??
No really, I was hoping, praying. Liljegren is still a top quality piece who will take over Toronto's blue line pretty quickly. Defensemen take longer to develop. Morgan Rielly could price himself out of Toronto in a couple of seasons especially with all of the cap problems they're likely to have with their forward talent, it's no coincidence that Rielly's contract is up at the same time Liljegren's entry level contract expires.
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.